The female-supremacist hate movement called 'feminism' must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world's gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grievous transgressions.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Have a Punching Bag Handy....

. . . so you won't smash your monitor in a rage while you are reading the rotten anti-male filth that follows. This dreck is copied from a pdf file available at the menstoppingviolence.org website. One way to get the concentrated effect is to scroll somewhat faster than you would normally read, and focus mainly on the orange-highlighted text for a rapid impressionistic overview:

"MenStopping Violence long ago shifted its focus to community-accountability work by integrating the concept into our intervention component, called the Men’s Education Program, and by creating other initiatives that seek to engage male allies outside of the classroom. . . .Projecting from a National Family Violence Survey and BIP enrollments in a major city, it’s estimated that less than 2 percent of men who had pushed, shoved, slapped, or hit their partners – or done worse – ended up in a Batterers’ Intervention Program. So what are we doing with 98 percent of those men, who don’t get anywhere near a batterers’ class or group? And, for those men who do attend a class for two hours a week, for 24, 36, or 52 weeks, how many of them will internalize meaningful, lasting change? For most of their lives, for the remaining 168 hours in their week, these men are receiving and sending powerfulmessages about the importance of controlling others, particularly women. In the context of a culture whose messages about domination masculinity are as endemic as the air we breathe, what does it mean to focus our solutions on BIPs? One thing it means is that we are avoiding opportunities to change the misogynist culture that produces men who batter.In the early eighties, some of the leading advocates in the Battered Women’s Movement questioned the purpose and efficacy of BIPs. Their questions were provocative and instructive. Those advocates questioned our strategies to change men’s minds and behaviors, one man or one men’s group at a time, instead of focusing our efforts on the culture that shapes the attitudes and beliefs of all men,whether they’re in a batterers’ program or not. For instance, “when Martin Luther King, Jr., went to confront racial injustice,” they said, “he didn’t mobilize or institute white people’s encounter groups.”These challenges raised the fundamental question: Should we be focusing on the few menwho got caught or on the men who could stop them?Over time we speculated that there is no either/or answer to that question. At the same time, we also felt and heard implicit and explicit messages from community agencies and the general public that we should be focusing our resources on the men who got caught. Were we getting that message because, if you send the “bad” guys to BIPs, the rest of the community is relieved of dealing with them? Or was it because resisting a culture that condones violence against women is just too daunting?Including or Requiring Community-Based ResponsesMen Stopping Violence’s response has been to create interventions with batterers that include or require community-based responses. Their function is to demystify and de-privatize the change process. For example, men first come to learn about the 24-week Men’s Education Program at a public orientation attended by community volunteers as well as candidates for the program. Once in the room we welcome the men as potential allies to work with us to end violence against women. Having deconstructed the problem of men’s violence against women, we challenge the men, as volunteers or as candidates, to enroll in our classes to join us in stopping the violence against women. Then, one of the men from our Community Restoration Program (CRP) describes his worst incident of violence against a woman. In so doing he publicly models accountability for his violence. CRP is for men who have completed our 24-week program and who have consistently demonstrated a willingness to challenge themselves and other men to change. They must show that they understand the need to restore to the community what they destroyed when they abused their partner. . . .Another way that Men Stopping Violence works to de-privatize men’s violence thru public accountability is to require men in our 24-week program to bring men from their community into the classroom to witness their work at the mid- and end- point of their class. Similar to Rhea Almeidas’ Cultural Context Model, in which men bring sponsors into their groups to support them by challenging their abusive behaviors and coaching them to consider their affects on others, men in our classes bring men who have influence in their lives. These men, such as clergy or uncles or co-workers, practice challenging the men in class to change and they pledge to hold them accountable once they have completed the course. One purpose of bringing witnesses into the class is to demystify the change process. We do this by increasing the number of men who can see that the issues menstruggle with in a batterers’ class are the same issues with which most men struggle. They witness men in the class taking responsibility for behaviors that many men use but do not generally think of as controlling or abusive. They leave the classunderstanding that all men and not just the men in class can benefit from working changing the beliefs and attitudes that promote violence against women.We invite the community to observe our classes, both to make transparent the purpose and the process of the work, and to model the concept of the community holding men, including our facilitators, accountable. We constantly invite feedback from our community partners.On several occasions we have held our classes in public arenas, including at our national trainings and as part of undergraduate seminars. We noticed that the men who volunteered to participate were as willing to get real with their work in public settings (acknowledging abuse, and confronting and supporting each other) as they were in the confines of our classroom. They saw these experiences as opportunities to educate the public on how men can work to hold men accountable.We think the tipping point for men who are seeking change is when they understand that it’s lifelong work and that they will have to enlist community support to sustain it.Our Internship and Mentor Training programs provide opportunities for young men to engage with peers in school and community settings to prevent dating violence.Strategies for ending violence against women are unlimited when we allow ourselves to think beyond the boundaries of BIPs. We are part of a growing network of men, including but in no way limited to, A Call to Men, Men’s Resources International, and Men Can Stop Rape, who are relentlessly moving those boundaries. It’s about time."

Ahhh. . . yes! Repeat after me: Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem..Men Are The Problem!!

feminist gal said: "It is very well documented that men are in fact the perpetrators of the majority of violence in our country, and I’d even go as far to say internationally as well."

That's not what the article is about. The article is NOT about violence between men: The article claims (!) that in cases of violence between men and women, it's mostly men who are the perpetrators. Which is (at least) questionable and not the whole picture of the story. Some say it's plain wrong, and they may be right. And because of that, there is enough reason for being concerned about the article.

That may be more than enough for an educating reading session around Christmas. The links are mostly from mainstream sources (no MRA blogs). The first link is even from Harvard Medical School.

Evidence is piling up that in the area of domestic violence, women are just as violent and abusive as men. And that's not even including the very real problem of women falsely accusing men of rape. There's an official study by the German police in Bavaria (German language PDF from the police's website here) with the following key finding:

"All police officials working at sexual offense cases agree that clearly more than half of the reported cases are fakes."An article summarizing the study (in German) can be read here.

A man committing rape is a criminal of course, but every woman falsely accusing a man of rape is a criminal too. So now there are official police studies proving that more than half of all women are lying when they claim "He raped me!".Presented with the facts, feminists of course prefer to stick their fingers into their ears. But that doesn't make the facts go away.

One of the things I do when confronted with this sort of stuff is what I call "Judo-think" - so named because the essence of Judo is to redirect the opponent's effort back at him.

In this case, it is quickly apparent that the author aims to further propagate the idea that DV is a man/perpetrator, woman/victim phenomenon, and proposes more cultural monitoring and management of male minds.

The Judo-think response is to use the author's very words to assert the opposite, namely that DV is a serious problem with women as perpetrators and men as unwary victims, and that women need to be mind-managed to make them understand the nature of their violence and the harm that it does.

Not only does it save one the effort of writing such a missive from scratch, it also gives a little hint to women of what the incessant, sexist and vindictive noise that men have endured for the last 30 years sounds like.

It also makes reading this twaddle so much more pleasant when I'm mentally transposing 'man' with 'woman' as I read through, correcting it as I go.

An idea comes to mind that we could set up an online library of all well-known feminist works, starting with 'The Society for Cutting Up Women' and 'The Men's Room'.

You say that the majority, not all, of violent perpetrators are male, which means that female participants also exist; should we not address them as well? After all, feminists do push for female minorities to be given attention, but I guess since violence is bad and therefore associated women wouldn't "advance" their status then we can just ignore that particular issue, right? Not to mention the current questionability of stated male/female ratios, especially in the domestic area.

A better way to stop people (yes, this includes both men and women—politically correct gender neutrality can go both ways) from committing violent acts would be to alleviate the impetus for them, rather than piling on more marketable deterratns. There's a reason such behavior is referred to as "deviant": because the action is performed regardless of whether it is praised or condemned by others.

Feminists believe that male violence against women is due to cultural memes of male dominance, but how do you know that every male who dominates women in this manner does so out of fulfillment of this meme? Or even how many? Perhaps some of these men do acknowledge violence women as immoral, but are pushed into an emotional position where they just stop caring and toss aside their moral indoctrinations out of desperate self-preservation.

Not to mention that such gendered categorization of violence has a nice side effect of unfairly letting women off the hook in terms of burden-shouldering. Sounds an awful lot like privilege to me. :O

"It is very well documented that men are in fact the perpetrators of the majority of violence in our country. . ."

Concerning the issue in point, a diversity of conclusions have been "documented". Some appear more creditable, others less.

The issue in point is, of course, male violence against women. The above quoted passage seems to refer to violence in general. So, it is like broadening the bullseye - by definition - to include the entire dartboard.

You say, "That's not what the article is about. The article is NOT about violence between men: The article claims (!) that in cases of violence between men and women, it's mostly men who are the perpetrators.”You are right, and I was not trying to broaden the target to establish my opinion as Fidelbogen suggested but rather point to the fact that this material is valid because most the violence in our country (toward men AND women) is committed by men so men should be the ones to take responsibility for it.

Michael and Kuuenbu ascertain that "women are just as violent and abusive as men" and “female participants also exist; should we not address them as well?”I agree with half of that – the fact that violence by women against men DOES in fact exist. I disagree, however, that “women are just as violent and abusive as men” Research shows that the violence women commit is either 1. in self defense or 2. less severe. Also, they type of violence used is very different. Within partner violence, women are more likely to push and shove as apposed to their male counterparts who punch or use sexual violence. However, violence is violence and I agree that ALL partner violence is unacceptable, regardless of the direction.

I will also go as far as to suggest that the amount of violence by women towards men is incredibly under-documented because men do not always report this violence because they may be embarrassed. Domestic violence is a problem, thus the more people to spread the message to stop abusing each other, the better.

Also, Kuuenbu, you suggest that “A better way to stop people from committing violent acts would be to alleviate the impetus for them” and you know what, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you have any suggestions as to how we as a society can go about doing this, I am all ears.

As far as women falsifying rape charges, i seriously won't even go there but what i will point out is the only "evidence" that you could find was in German? Bias much? Though very important to discuss, international issues of violence and gender cannot be used to generalize to the U.S. Also, since the study you pointed me to was in German, as a psychology researcher, I have no way to verify the reliability or validity of the research (as I do not understand German).

I also want to point out that this discussion is excluding same-sex couples, in which, regardless of if it’s a male or female couple, violence also exists. This isn’t a criticism on any of you, because that isn’t what the article is about, I just wanted to through it out there so we remember to think of same-sex couples in all the conversations we have about relationships.

Domestic violence is a huge problem in our country and internationally. Since most of the violence is committed by men, why not use men to advocate for safer and more healthy relationships? I don’t understand how this is a loss for equality.

My gut reaction is to tell the feminazi hate bitches, "You better believe it babe, and you better be watching your back side." This article is the greatest encouragement for selective violence than anything I've read lately.

To use their example, some selective violence was what stopped the Martin King protests, not all the discussions, objections, and debates. Anti-men hate mongers like the evil "menstoppingviolence" authors, blind repeaters like "feminist gal" and others who promote such hatred of men need to be stopped.

Men are not going to succeed by using powerless denials. Men will only succeed by being powerful and claiming their accusation. Instead of having a "punching bag" ready to avoid smashing the monitor, what MEN need is to have a heavy caliber weapon handy and be focused on the perpetrators of this kind of evil. Men stopping violence? I would much rather see men stopping manginas, feminazi, and their allies. Let them have it with both barrels.

Erin Pizzey the founder of the modern Shelter/Refuge Movement, found that many of the Women in her Refuge were as violent or more violent than the Men she was fleeing from. The first 62 of 100 to be precise.

RADAR has many peer reviewed studies that dispute Feminist Gal's absurd notion that the majority of domestic violence is caused by Men.

The actual breakdown is 25% Men, 25% Women and the other 50% mutual violence. Pizzey pointed out that rather than addressing the issue of Domestic abuse based on the individual, by making it a Gender issue it became a Funding source for the Feminists.

If you never solve the problem, have no interest in solving the problem, but use Advocacy Research and Lobbying to fund your movement. It would be like A Doctor who cured all disease. What do you need him/her for after that?

"The "Mr_Ogynist" parody blog at LJ is a prime example along that line. . . eh?"

Well-spotted Fidel. I notice Kelly added advertising to it, so in a very small way it's also an earner. But unlike the hard slog of original blogs, parody blogs are very easy to put together. A single writer could choose dozens of blogs, literature, media etc, link them together via Link lists, place advertising on all of them, and see how significant a cash flow it generated.

The larger the network of parodies, the more likely it is to draw in Google searchers, then provide them with a growing universe of what may seem to be original work.

One of the things we can most rely upon with feminist leaning women is their great love of being outraged, and the resultant attempts at having it all shut down (which are in truth feminist works!) just appeals enormously to my sense of humour.

BOB: You are a man of spirit; a man of mettle; a man who pulls no punches. I'll give you that!

However, you'll not hear ME preaching the likes of what you are saying, and I'll not be endorsing it here on CF. Other bloggers, more faint-hearted than myself, would have moderated your comment. I could have done that too, but I feel that it would have been a cop-out. I don't like to censor men's voices, even if they ARE saying things that might seem politically dicey for the Movement.

So... in that respect I try to walk a fine line and maintain a certain balance.

I advocate (and practice) a policy akin to GLASNOST.

Openness! Transparency!

I want the world to understand what is going on, and censoring men's voices - even the harsh or extreme ones - is not, in my considered opinion, the way to make that happen!

And so, Bob, I am grateful for voices such as yours. I appreciate that you have taken time to comment here, and I am honestly, genuinely interested in what you have to say. I feel your anger at the SHITTY DEAL which is being dealt to men in the world today and yes, i share that anger!!! Goddamn straight I do!! However. . .

I will NOT add my voice to yours on some of the points which you have stated.

My voice is what it is, and your voice is what it is, and sometimes our voices will meet and flow together as one stream, and sometimes they won't.

In the end, know this: that the Counter-Feminist blog is a place where a man may speak his mind, but where another man - to speak his mind equally - may follow with grave counsel and reproof!

feminist gal, I'm from Germany, so excuse my German bias... I just can't help it ! ;-)

I mentioned the study because you said:"It is very well documented that men are in fact the perpetrators of the majority of violence in our country, and I’d even go as far to say internationally as well."

That German study is a well documented counterexample to your claim, at least in the area of violence (or lack thereof!) between men and women.

I think it is not helpful to lump cases of men/men and men/women violence together. Gay/lesbian relationships excluded (just because they're not so relevant because of their low(er) percentage), violence (or claims of violence) happen for different reasons between the gender groups: between a woman and a man, it's most of the time relationship-related, whereas between men and men and women and women it's not (so often, see above). These distinctions are important if we want to develop working strategies against different forms of violence, or accusations of violence that never happened...

Men Stopping Violence indeed; by pointing out that women are more violent that men, but that is not what the site intended.

I love the end game.

The time when the "winners" realize that the opposition has achieved critical mass, and the last-ditch counter-offensive begins. Battle of the Bulge.

The evidence is overwhelming. The lies of the feminists have been exposed by academia around the globe. The word is getting out. We are wise to you. The jig is up. Men are able to say, and are saying: "That's not true, and we can prove it." Hillary's coronation will be the death gasp of western feminism. Momentum has already turned.

Following soon will be the flight for the exits, and when the collaborator-bashing begins in earnest, the denials of complicity from the likes of fecke.

Men's victory will be complete when women no longer acknowledge their participation women's studies. They will say they got a degree in liberal arts.

I think her writing becomes more authentic not only because the customary accusatory finger is pointing backwards, but also because the 'regendering' reveals the projection that motivates the author. In other words, she's actually talking about how she thinks, and employing regendering in order to express her potential fear of men, as she assumes men think the same way. The regender tool reverses the regendering she sub-consciously applied, and voila - her mindset is revealed, both the problem and the solution.

Lately, through my own monocle, I am seeing that a growing number of feminists have apparently thrown in the towel as concerns the whole issue of male DV. This "growing number" is now candidly acknowledging, well... the numbers, and what the numbers show.

AND.... they are trying to shift the discussion into different channels, in which they may still hope to occupy some manner of high ground or otherwise make a favorable showing.

I think that they have also seen the writing on the wall as regards father's rights, family law, divorce law, etc,. . . and they are trying to position themselves on "the good side" - even to the point of infiltrating some of the reform movements and going to bat for them in order to put a feminist stamp upon the political outcome, thereby gaining some of the credit.

Naturally, they would hope that feminist responsibility for the whole crisis in the first place, gets lost in the shuffle.

It tickles my sense of humor to see them somewhat stodgily admitting that the father's rights people "might actually have some points", and yet huffily, haughtily distancing themselves from the "whackjob MRAs". (Which would include people like your present royal blogmeister, I assume! ;-)

From: The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data

by Donald G. Dutton , Tonia L. Nicholls

The self defense debate: Female intimate violence is defensive

Walker (1984) and Saunders (1988) acknowledged presence of female violence but argued that it was defensive or, in some cases, a pre-emptive strike. Both the Walker and Saunders samples, upon which they based this argument, came from women’s shelters or participantswho self-selected as battered women and so, by definition, contained women who were physically abused but who may not be representative of community samples of women.Saunders did not comment on this generalization problem but simply commented that as a"feminist researcher" he had an obligation to examine motives in addition to hit counts. He argued that social science must be a "tool for social change". Saunders concluded that female violence is always self defense, even when the woman uses severe violence and the man uses only mild violence. This, he asserted, is because of the woman’s smaller size and weight. Hefocused this analysis on the Straus et al. (1980) data. These data never asked who used violence first so the question of self defense cannot be answered by that data set. Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stetsand Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time (see below).Stets and Straus (1992a, 1992b) combined the 1985 US National Family Violence Resurvey (N =5005) with a sample of 526 dating couples to generate a large and representative sample of male–female relationships, in which they reported the incidenceof intimate violence by gender. Their data table on relationship form and gender is reproducedbelow (see Table 1). Using a subset of 825 respondents who reported experiencing at least one or more assaults, Stets and Straus found that in half (49%) of the incidents the couples reported reciprocal violence, in a quarter (23%) of the cases the couples reported that thehusband alone was violent, and 1/4 (28%) reported the wife alone was violent. Men (n =297) reported striking the first blow in 43.7% of cases and that their partner struck the first blow in 44.1% of the cases. The women (n =428) reported striking the first blow in 52.7% of the cases and that their partner struck first in 42.6% of the cases. Stets and Straus concluded thatnot only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are "at least as likely" toinstigate violence. The results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%)than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992, Table9.1). This latter result is difficult to explain from the feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument thatfemale violence is solely defensive.

"The Stets and Straus (1992b) data contained another finding that is problematic for the self-defense and pre-emptive strike arguments; many women reported using severe violence against non-violent men."

The fundamental reason that Feminists must perpetuate the Lie that Men are responsible for all Domestic Abuse is simple. Their goal is to foster distrust and to divide the Genders. They have stated such goals openly.

This should come as no surprise. Feminist Gal google Erin Pizzey and read her blog. You might also wonder why Feminists threatened to kill her Children. Those loving, Children friendly Feminist Friends of yours.

By promoting the now factually disputed Myth that only Men commit domestic abuse, Feminists insure that the problem can never be solved. And can justify their feeding at the Government trough.

Femifascists are now using the US Federal Government to stop US Men from associating with Foreign Women on the internet. Funny Foreign Women are eager for a relationship with an American Man. US Men are rejecting American Women who embrace Feminism.

On another thread, a commenter posted news about the new $5 tax levied exclusively against MEN (in Texas) for the purpose of funding "rape awareness programs" or such. Clearly, the whole point of it is to stigmatize men and maleness, and to rub salt in the wounds, and to push the male population deeper and deeper into a propaganda mud-hole as part of the continuing socio-political War Against Men.

Feminist innovations such as these will in the long run only make things WORSE for women - and for everybody. Which is exactly what the feminists want. Anything to drive the wedge between men and women deeper and deeper, and to poison ALL normal heterosexual relations, and to accelerate (by collateral methods in this case) the breakdown of marriage and family.

And above all to poison the world AGAINST MEN specifically.

The trouble is, that in a social ecology poison spreads. If you poison the world against men, women too will suffer the consequences. But once again, that is what the feminists want: as the poison spreads, they will look for ways to blame the consequences on men! And they will have their pretext to agitate for even MORE anti-male laws, programs and public policies, and fuel the cycle of political violence through yet another round.

You know what? I don't even give a shit! Let the feminists do their worst. Let the feminist political machine continue to crank out what it cranks out. For it is exactly that: a MACHINE. And as such, it is mindless. It will mindlessly go on doing what it does until somebody or something pulls the plug, or commits sabotage, or deprives it of fuel.

Maybe things just need to get worse before they get better. If things keep going the way they are going, we can naturally expect MORE MALE VIOLENCE. Fine, bring it on! I personally won't do much to stop it, since I wash my hands of all responsibility for the inevitable outcome of other people's actions.

What i WILL try to do, by means of agitation and such, is to awaken male political consciousness. Such awakening is without a doubt the best thing that can happen for all concerned! Including women.

Male anger and male VIOLENCE is bound to grow, and if you don't give it a POLITICAL target, it will explode in a random, apolitical way against whoever and whatever.

Let men KNOW what is going on. Give them an analysis to go along with their "attitude", and show them the proper direction in which to throw their punches.

This will keep the bad stuff to a minimum. It will also guide us toward solutions rather than dupe us deeper and deeper into difficulties as the feminists would like. It will point to the correct path out of the maze!